|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
I think it is possible that latinos will vote in much greater numbers than usual, making polling methods less accurate.
|
On November 06 2016 10:30 Yoav wrote:Show nested quote +On November 06 2016 09:55 Sermokala wrote:
I think a High school education or a GED should be a requirement to vote. But at the same time you should be signed up to vote when you get that GED or high school diploma.
the next few years are going to be rocky as hell if trump wins but I don't think he will completely ruin the nation or cause a civil war. Honestly, I think we should give everyone the right to vote as high schoolers. Maybe at age 16. And have every school year a big point made of a field trip to the polls, where everyone eligible gets to vote and gets in the habit. That way we would have a less abysmal participation rate by the young, which leads to policies that favor the old.
How old are you?
Edit: You can be honest there is no winning answer here.
|
On November 05 2016 20:37 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:
Building a wall to stop illegal immigration and removing illegal immigrants from the USA are not racist policies.
The key word here is illegal.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dog-whistle_politics
You start out in 1954 by saying, "Nigger, nigger, nigger." By 1968, you can't say "nigger" — that hurts you. Backfires. So you say stuff like forced busing, states' rights and all that stuff. You're getting so abstract now [that] you're talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you're talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is [that] blacks get hurt worse than whites. And subconsciously maybe that is part of it. I'm not saying that. But I'm saying that if it is getting that abstract, and that coded, that we are doing away with the racial problem one way or the other. You follow me — because obviously sitting around saying, "We want to cut this," is much more abstract than even the busing thing, and a hell of a lot more abstract than "Nigger, nigger."
— Lee Atwater, Republican Party strategist in an anonymous interview in 1981
When Trump talks about "illegal immigrants" everyone knows he only means the brown ones. Same thing with random internet right-wingers. Adding to this it's been revealed that Trump's wife was working here illegally which makes his son an anchor baby. Is he going to deport both of them?
That said I'm not sure why Trump supporters tend to only focus on his dogwhistles that contain plausible deniability when people call him racist. He has at many times throughout his life discarded the dogwhistle entirely.
|
|
|
On November 06 2016 09:49 Plansix wrote:
Whines about a rigged election. Then whine about not being able to rig the election.
We are going to start hearing about hispanics voting more than once either tomorrow or Monday. Guaranteed.
Early. It's fraud if his opponents supporters get to vote.
|
On November 05 2016 21:01 Ayaz2810 wrote:
Wait. So, Trump supporters don't care if he actually works in the best interests of the country? They care about the "statement" his election will make. That's pretty fucking scary, and painfully ignorant. I'm sure Americans would love to be guinea pigs in this poorly thought out experiment. Good thinking! Jesus.
Yup. Believe me it's as scary from the inside as it looks from the outside.
|
Sweden33719 Posts
On November 06 2016 10:05 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On November 06 2016 09:55 Sermokala wrote:
I think a High school education or a GED should be a requirement to vote. But at the same time you should be signed up to vote when you get that GED or high school diploma.
the next few years are going to be rocky as hell if trump wins but I don't think he will completely ruin the nation or cause a civil war. I'm not sure that'd be constitutional, I'd be inclined to guess not. I estimate the net long term damage of a Trump presidency to be 0.5% of gdp total (including the effects of institutional damage, some of which may take some time to show). of course such estimates are incredibly unreliable. and would be hard to detect given annual gdp growth is around 2%
What is that estimate based on? Seems incredibly hard to ever confirm or disprove such an estimate post fact given there will be so many variables that contributed, no?
|
So from what i get the democrat vote has been surging almost everywhere we have has news. There was a few reports of Clinton lagging in the black vote but that is about it. That just seems like conservatives trying to grasp at anything though to make the race seem more close. Trump only way to win was going to be if Clinton had massive enthusiasm problems and there was huge voter apathy but that does not seem to be happening.
|
On November 06 2016 05:24 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On November 06 2016 05:01 ChristianS wrote:On November 06 2016 04:55 xDaunt wrote:On November 06 2016 04:44 ChristianS wrote:On November 06 2016 04:37 xDaunt wrote:On November 06 2016 04:26 ChristianS wrote:On November 06 2016 04:18 xDaunt wrote:On November 06 2016 04:17 ChristianS wrote:On November 06 2016 04:06 xDaunt wrote:On November 06 2016 03:44 kwizach wrote:
[quote]
You realize this was written in April 2015, right? Before the issue was repeatedly addressed by the Clinton campaign? The date's irrelevant. And they still haven't made proper disclosures as is evidenced by the failure to disclose a $1 million gift from Qatar. Foundation officials told Reuters last year that they did not always comply with central provisions of the agreement with President Barack Obama's administration, blaming oversights in some cases.(reut.rs/2fkHPCh)
At least eight other countries besides Qatar gave new or increased funding to the foundation, in most cases to fund its health project, without the State Department being informed, according to foundation and agency records. They include Algeria, which gave for the first time in 2010, and the United Kingdom, which nearly tripled its support for the foundation's health project to $11.2 million between 2009 and 2012.
Foundation officials have said some of those donations, including Algeria, were oversights and should have been flagged, while others, such as the UK increase, did not qualify as material increases.
The foundation has declined to describe what sort of increase in funding by a foreign government would have triggered notification of the State Department for review. Cookstra said the agreement was designed to "allow foreign funding for critical Clinton Foundation programs" to continue without disruption.
The State Department said it has no record of being asked by the foundation to review any increases in support by a foreign government.
Asked whether Qatar was funding a specific program at the foundation, Cookstra said the country supported the organization's "overall humanitarian work."
"Qatar continued supporting Clinton Foundation at equal or lower levels" compared with the country's pre-2009 support, he said. He declined to say if Qatar gave any money during the first three years of Clinton's four-year term at the State Department, or what its support before 2009 amounted to.
In another email released by WikiLeaks, a former Clinton Foundation fundraiser said he raised more than $21 million in connection with Bill Clinton's 65th birthday in 2011.
Spokesmen for Hillary Clinton's campaign and Bill Clinton did not respond to emailed questions about the donation.
Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump has said that major donors to the Clinton Foundation may have obtained favored access to Clinton's State Department, but has provided little evidence to that effect. Clinton and her staff have dismissed this accusation as a political smear.
Last month, New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman ordered the Donald J. Trump Foundation to stop fundraising in the state, saying it had not registered to solicit donations. The date seems relevant, given that the article you linked argues the Clintons need to offer a clear plan for how they'll avoid conflicts of interest with CF donors. They've since done exactly that. No, they very clearly haven't done it given the Qatar story. Perhaps you misunderstand. I'm not saying they addressed every accusation from when she was SoS. Your article argued that the donations, etc. the CF received while she was SoS weren't illegal, but indicated possible conflict of interest problems would occur when she's become president. The CF has addressed that concern ( link). Yeah, and they also promised to comply with certain ethical standards when Hillary became SoS. Color me unconvinced. In related news, take a look at this memo from 2008: RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE FOUNDATION AND THE PRESIDENT
There are members of the staff who are paid by the President/his office and the Foundation, which may cause apparent or real conflicts of interest.
o
For example, a senior staff member being paid by the President, the government, and the Foundation allowed the Foundation to host what may have been (or may have been viewed as) a political event, apparently, without official pre-approval from the Foundation’s legal department and without regard, before the fact, to the impact of that decision on the Foundation’s tax exempt status.
o
It has been reported to me that a senior staff member has attempted to have (and perhaps succeeded in having) her travel paid for by the Foundation when traveling with the President on mixed trips, even though her presence may not have been needed for the Foundation.
o
It is not apparent how staff members paid through various sources (which means, presumably, having more than one full-time job) are able to fulfill their responsibilities and duties to the Foundation given the amount of work associated with those responsibilities and duties.
Many staff members believe that staff members with closer ties to the former President receive better benefits or more favorable treatment from the Foundation as a result of those ties.
o
Many staff members believe that certain people are “untouchable” because of their relationship to the President.
o
A few commented on Laura’s extended absence and her late arrival time, believing that both violate Foundation policy and/or standards.
Many staff members are confused as to the decision-making process at the Foundation, not knowing where the ultimate authority lies for most major decisions.
Virtually everyone I interviewed expressed some level of concern about the Foundation’s sustainability and/or viability when the former President is no longer involved, and their interest in it becoming a sustainable organization that survives the former President.
It is not clear that the Board is sufficiently independent from the President and/or is structured appropriately given the current size of the organization and the breadth of its work.
Virtually all Harlem staff interviewed expressed relief that the campaign is over, advising me that many staff members turned their focus on that during the campaign and others advised that they were concerned about the President’s commitment to the Foundation during the primary and after the election if the Senator had prevailed. Source. (Courtesy of Wikileaks and John Podesta) And for those who don't understand what this memo is, it's a memo from an independent attorney to the Clinton Foundation regarding various compliance issues. So this is a rather damning snapshot of operations back in 2008. And for those who are confused about what's so damning, it's the inextricable relationship between the Foundation and President Clinton's political power that's keeping the Foundation afloat. To what extend do y'all think that those practices have changed? Except this time they're not saying they're gonna disclose shit and keep certain standards, they're taking Bill and Hillary off the board and no longer taking foreign donations. I don't know what else they could do to put this to rest. Is the concern that they'll be controlled by donations from domestic interests? Because in that case why wouldn't those interests just donate to a Clinton SuperPAC instead? Past bad behavior means nothing to you? The point is that the there's a clear and present degree of ethical impropriety (corruption) that comes with the Clintons that has been made clear over the past thirty years, and that this degree of ethical impropriety, regardless of its strict legality, shouldn't be ignored. But you're changing the subject. You posted an article that contended that the Clintons need to address the potential problem of conflicts of interest wrt the CF, and when someone pointed out that the article was very old, you argued that doesn't matter because it still applies. It doesn't, because since that article was posted, they have addressed the potential problem of conflicts of interest. If you instead switch the discussion from potential conflicts of interest under an HRC presidency to whether the CF stuff reflects poorly on Hillary's character, I'd just say we have plenty more and better indications of these candidates' character than some donations back in 2012. I haven't changed the subject at all. My running argument for the past few days is that we should not tolerate politicians who do the sorts of things that the Clintons do and have done. Y'all are the ones who keep trying to reframe it or outright dispute it.
The point is that you referenced the NY Times editorial as if it supported your position, while it does not. The piece asked Clinton to address issues related to the Clinton Foundation, which she has. Your argument is that what she has said, done and promised to do is not satisfactory (because of what you believe about her), but the NY Times editorial does not take that position -- indeed, it was written in April 2015, before she addressed those issues, and therefore it could not possibly take a position on her response. You would need to find a NY Times editorial criticizing as insufficient her most recent declarations and her pledge with regards to her future links to the Clinton Foundation post-election in order to be able to claim that the NY Times editorial board agrees with you.
|
On November 06 2016 10:53 Liquid`Jinro wrote:Show nested quote +On November 06 2016 10:05 zlefin wrote:On November 06 2016 09:55 Sermokala wrote:
I think a High school education or a GED should be a requirement to vote. But at the same time you should be signed up to vote when you get that GED or high school diploma.
the next few years are going to be rocky as hell if trump wins but I don't think he will completely ruin the nation or cause a civil war. I'm not sure that'd be constitutional, I'd be inclined to guess not. I estimate the net long term damage of a Trump presidency to be 0.5% of gdp total (including the effects of institutional damage, some of which may take some time to show). of course such estimates are incredibly unreliable. and would be hard to detect given annual gdp growth is around 2% What is that estimate based on?
my own estimate based on my judgment and knowledge of many things, hence incredibly unreliable. (and of course any such estimate is very unreliable anyways, even if made by people with far more expertise and information).
It just seems that if we're to discuss the damage someone may do as president because we deem them unfit, we make some effort to quantify the damage somehow.
Is that sufficient answer to your query?
edit: you edit added more question, so I edit add an answer: yes, it'd be very hard to ever tell.
|
On November 06 2016 10:34 DemigodcelpH wrote:Show nested quote +On November 05 2016 20:37 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:
Building a wall to stop illegal immigration and removing illegal immigrants from the USA are not racist policies.
The key word here is illegal.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dog-whistle_politicsShow nested quote +You start out in 1954 by saying, "Nigger, nigger, nigger." By 1968, you can't say "nigger" — that hurts you. Backfires. So you say stuff like forced busing, states' rights and all that stuff. You're getting so abstract now [that] you're talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you're talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is [that] blacks get hurt worse than whites. And subconsciously maybe that is part of it. I'm not saying that. But I'm saying that if it is getting that abstract, and that coded, that we are doing away with the racial problem one way or the other. You follow me — because obviously sitting around saying, "We want to cut this," is much more abstract than even the busing thing, and a hell of a lot more abstract than "Nigger, nigger."
— Lee Atwater, Republican Party strategist in an anonymous interview in 1981 When Trump talks about "illegal immigrants" everyone knows he only means the brown ones. Same thing with random internet right-wingers. Adding to this it's been revealed that Trump's wife was working here illegally which makes his son an anchor baby. Is he going to deport both of them? That said I'm not sure why Trump supporters tend to only focus on his dogwhistles that contain plausible deniability when people call him racist. He has at many times throughout his life discarded the dogwhistle entirely.
Well the second assassination attempt at one of his rallies was from an illegal alien white British guy.The one who tried to grab the gun off the cop and shoot Trump.An illegal is an illegal.
We just saw tonight another security incident at a Trump rally.Trump had to be whisked off stage by the secret service due to a gun threat.After the man was removed Trump came back on stage and continued his speech.Compare this to Clinton who did a 7 minute speech in Florida before bailing early due to rain.
|
On November 05 2016 12:02 RealityIsKing wrote:Show nested quote +On November 05 2016 11:36 DemigodcelpH wrote:On November 05 2016 11:08 biology]major wrote:On November 05 2016 10:59 plasmidghost wrote:
These polls are really stressing me out. I don't like Hillary, but her being president is without a doubt going to be a lot more reasonable than Trump as president. If she loses this, I think I'll start campaigning for the Democrats for Congress in 2018
Wait, I just realized now that Trump is to the Democrats what Obama was to the Republicans, now I can kind of understand why they tried everything they could to stop anything he wanted Trump winning is nothing short of a miracle, he was the underdog in every single facet from the very beginning. its disgusting how imbalanced this race has been so far. Electoral map, money, establishment, surrogates, celebrities, media all against trump. I respect someone who can win in those circumstances, and what I do not respect is how hrc can lose with all those adv. Not true at all. Trump is always graded on a curve. Hillary is not. The media is the only reason someone as ignorant as Trump is competitive to begin with, and they have given him hundreds of millions of dollars of free coverage. And among all of that free coverage he actually gets less negative coverage than Hillary despite, ironically, being the vastly more negative candidate. Funny how that works. Hillary sneezes and it's a scandal. Trump talks about how he could shoot someone and they barely cover it. Oh and Trump is not anti-establishment. He's a corrupt media executive billionaire (or some would say "billionaire") who has the entire GOP war-chest behind it. There are more chance of Hillary of convicted as guilty by the justice system of being corrupt than Trump being convicted.
<citation missing>
On November 05 2016 12:02 RealityIsKing wrote:The evidence against Hillary have been much more convincing.
No it hasn't. 30 years of Republican-led witchhunting and they've still got nothing. Even the Republican FBI director couldn't actually make charges, because she never did anything illegal.
So by that logic she is the smartest genius who has ever lived and Republicans are really really incompetent, or she is innocent. Take your pick.
On November 05 2016 12:02 RealityIsKing wrote:And beside even if both are found guilty, Hillary's scale of corruption is way above Trump's.
Waiting for you to show me her "corruption" that doesn't involve linking some right-wing blog.
Meanwhile Trump is the literal definition of corruption. A greedy billionaire abusing legal loopholes to avoid paying taxes while working class Americans foot the bill for him.
On November 05 2016 12:02 RealityIsKing wrote:Also Trump is not exactly ignorant.
He says vaccines cause autism and that global warming is a myth that was invented by China. He is, by definition, very ignorant and even his supporters have to acknowledge this.
On November 05 2016 12:02 RealityIsKing wrote:That have been largely Obama's 8 year plan, which haven't been working for most of the Americans thus far.
It's funny that you bring this up. I try not to be too hard on my Republican colleagues, because many of them suffer from a serious illness called amnesia. And unlike Donald Trump I personally do not believe it is right to make fun of the disabled. Now what this illness is about is that they seem to have forgotten where this country was 8 years ago tonight. Somehow it just skips their minds. They forgot that 8 years ago we were losing 800,000 jobs a month; a horrific number that is unprecedented in American history since the Great Depression. They also forgot, just to mention it, that the world's financial system was on the verge of collapse. Now we're at 200,000 new jobs a month and an unemployment rate of 4.9%.
Thanks Obama.
On November 05 2016 12:02 RealityIsKing wrote:
Trump's plan does come with a risk that
Trump's plan comes with the risk that he just says random things and doesn't actually vet them or mean what he says. This is why he says Mexico is going to pay for his fantasy wall even though the Mexican president has already refused. This means he would have to heavily tax America to build it.
But if you mean his financial plans then it would be catastrophic for the US economy. It's time for greedy billionaires like Trump to start paying their pay share and yet he wants even bigger tax cuts for the 1% than Bush. The billionaire elite already dictate US policies to almost near undemocratic level; lets not hand them the White House too.
|
|
|
Sweden33719 Posts
On November 06 2016 10:59 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On November 06 2016 10:53 Liquid`Jinro wrote:On November 06 2016 10:05 zlefin wrote:On November 06 2016 09:55 Sermokala wrote:
I think a High school education or a GED should be a requirement to vote. But at the same time you should be signed up to vote when you get that GED or high school diploma.
the next few years are going to be rocky as hell if trump wins but I don't think he will completely ruin the nation or cause a civil war. I'm not sure that'd be constitutional, I'd be inclined to guess not. I estimate the net long term damage of a Trump presidency to be 0.5% of gdp total (including the effects of institutional damage, some of which may take some time to show). of course such estimates are incredibly unreliable. and would be hard to detect given annual gdp growth is around 2% What is that estimate based on? my own estimate based on my judgment and knowledge of many things, hence incredibly unreliable. (and of course any such estimate is very unreliable anyways, even if made by people with far more expertise and information). It just seems that if we're to discuss the damage someone may do as president because we deem them unfit, we make some effort to quantify the damage somehow. Is that sufficient answer to your query? edit: you edit added more question, so I edit add an answer: yes, it'd be very hard to ever tell.
Was mostly wondering if there was some like methodology or model behind it since I like predictions based on such :D
|
Canada11279 Posts
After the man was removed Trump came back on stage and continued his speech.Compare this to Clinton who did a 7 minute speech in Florida before bailing early due to rain.
Honestly, this is the sort of partisan hackneyed comments that caused me to purge the news feed of Facebook of my friend from the left and the right of the political spectrum in the last Canadian election.
This category of comment is really is just 101 ways to say 'I like Trump and hate Hillary.' And despite my interest in politics, I find the partisanship tiresome.
|
On November 06 2016 10:53 Liquid`Jinro wrote:Show nested quote +On November 06 2016 10:05 zlefin wrote:On November 06 2016 09:55 Sermokala wrote:
I think a High school education or a GED should be a requirement to vote. But at the same time you should be signed up to vote when you get that GED or high school diploma.
the next few years are going to be rocky as hell if trump wins but I don't think he will completely ruin the nation or cause a civil war. I'm not sure that'd be constitutional, I'd be inclined to guess not. I estimate the net long term damage of a Trump presidency to be 0.5% of gdp total (including the effects of institutional damage, some of which may take some time to show). of course such estimates are incredibly unreliable. and would be hard to detect given annual gdp growth is around 2% What is that estimate based on? Seems incredibly hard to ever confirm or disprove such an estimate post fact given there will be so many variables that contributed, no?
GDP would go down as soon as Obamacare is repealed.
Healthcare costs accounted for 58% of US GDP growth in Q1 2016, majority of that coming from Obamacare rate hikes.
Q1 GDP +1.1 so around 0.6%
Of course people literally going into debt to pay for healthcare premiums that are rising 25% a year isn't good for the economy but technically it provides spending growth.
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-06-28/obamacare-accounted-58-us-growth-first-quarter
|
On November 06 2016 11:07 Liquid`Jinro wrote:Show nested quote +On November 06 2016 10:59 zlefin wrote:On November 06 2016 10:53 Liquid`Jinro wrote:On November 06 2016 10:05 zlefin wrote:On November 06 2016 09:55 Sermokala wrote:
I think a High school education or a GED should be a requirement to vote. But at the same time you should be signed up to vote when you get that GED or high school diploma.
the next few years are going to be rocky as hell if trump wins but I don't think he will completely ruin the nation or cause a civil war. I'm not sure that'd be constitutional, I'd be inclined to guess not. I estimate the net long term damage of a Trump presidency to be 0.5% of gdp total (including the effects of institutional damage, some of which may take some time to show). of course such estimates are incredibly unreliable. and would be hard to detect given annual gdp growth is around 2% What is that estimate based on? my own estimate based on my judgment and knowledge of many things, hence incredibly unreliable. (and of course any such estimate is very unreliable anyways, even if made by people with far more expertise and information). It just seems that if we're to discuss the damage someone may do as president because we deem them unfit, we make some effort to quantify the damage somehow. Is that sufficient answer to your query? edit: you edit added more question, so I edit add an answer: yes, it'd be very hard to ever tell. Was mostly wondering if there was some like methodology or model behind it since I like predictions based on such :D
mine is nowhere near detailed enough for such, I don't know if anyone has created one, but perhaps someone has.
there are certainly places one could look to develop a more detailed basis for prediction. but of course, even with far more detail, it'd still be very unreliable.
|
On November 06 2016 10:34 DemigodcelpH wrote:Show nested quote +On November 05 2016 20:37 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:
Building a wall to stop illegal immigration and removing illegal immigrants from the USA are not racist policies.
The key word here is illegal.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dog-whistle_politicsShow nested quote +You start out in 1954 by saying, "Nigger, nigger, nigger." By 1968, you can't say "nigger" — that hurts you. Backfires. So you say stuff like forced busing, states' rights and all that stuff. You're getting so abstract now [that] you're talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you're talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is [that] blacks get hurt worse than whites. And subconsciously maybe that is part of it. I'm not saying that. But I'm saying that if it is getting that abstract, and that coded, that we are doing away with the racial problem one way or the other. You follow me — because obviously sitting around saying, "We want to cut this," is much more abstract than even the busing thing, and a hell of a lot more abstract than "Nigger, nigger."
— Lee Atwater, Republican Party strategist in an anonymous interview in 1981 When Trump talks about "illegal immigrants" everyone knows he only means the brown ones. Same thing with random internet right-wingers. Adding to this it's been revealed that Trump's wife was working here illegally which makes his son an anchor baby. Is he going to deport both of them? That said I'm not sure why Trump supporters tend to only focus on his dogwhistles that contain plausible deniability when people call him racist. He has at many times throughout his life discarded the dogwhistle entirely.
Anchor baby means there's a baby born in the US that anchors the parents in the US because of unconditional birthright citizenship, meaning because births on US soil are necessarily citizens, it privileges the parents even if they're both illegal immigrants.
Barron Trump is not an anchor baby for the following reasons:
-Donald Trump is a US citizen (his son would be a US citizen even disregarding jus soli)
-Melania Trump was already a legal permanent resident of the US when their son was born (she became a naturalized citizen in 2006, which is the year their son was born, so I'm not sure if that was before or after) and didn't need to have a child to get any advantages. But this was a good try.
|
On November 06 2016 11:09 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:Show nested quote +On November 06 2016 10:53 Liquid`Jinro wrote:On November 06 2016 10:05 zlefin wrote:On November 06 2016 09:55 Sermokala wrote:
I think a High school education or a GED should be a requirement to vote. But at the same time you should be signed up to vote when you get that GED or high school diploma.
the next few years are going to be rocky as hell if trump wins but I don't think he will completely ruin the nation or cause a civil war. I'm not sure that'd be constitutional, I'd be inclined to guess not. I estimate the net long term damage of a Trump presidency to be 0.5% of gdp total (including the effects of institutional damage, some of which may take some time to show). of course such estimates are incredibly unreliable. and would be hard to detect given annual gdp growth is around 2% What is that estimate based on? Seems incredibly hard to ever confirm or disprove such an estimate post fact given there will be so many variables that contributed, no? GDP would go down as soon as Obamacare is repealed. Healthcare costs accounted for 58% of US GDP growth in Q1 2016, majority of that coming from Obamacare rate hikes. Q1 GDP +1.1 so around 0.6% Of course people literally going into debt to pay for healthcare premiums that are rising 25% a year isn't good for the economy but technically it provides spending growth. http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-06-28/obamacare-accounted-58-us-growth-first-quarter
You are aware that you linked zerohedge right?
|
So a Trump supporter got his ass kicked because half the country is paranoid...
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
